DocketNumber: No. CV940705145
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1915, 13 Conn. L. Rptr. 541
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 3/3/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
At the administrative hearing, the plaintiff appeared, represented by counsel, but did not testify or offer any evidence. The hearing officer introduced in evidence the written reports of the police officer who had arrested the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not object to the admission of these reports. There was no other evidence introduced at the hearing.
Following the hearing, the hearing officer rendered his final decision in which he set forth his findings on the CT Page 1916 issues as required by
The plaintiff advances the following arguments as the bases of his appeal: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's finding that the plaintiff was operating the vehicle within the meaning of §
The police reports that were admitted in evidence without objection indicate that Officer Ken Evans of the Fairfield Police Department arrived at the scene of a one-car accident on Hulls Highway in Fairfield at 12:29 A.M. on January 3, 1994. The plaintiff was in his vehicle and then the officer observed him exit, staggering as he did so. The officer noted a strong odor of alcohol on the plaintiff's breath and that his eyes were bloodshot. The plaintiff told the officer that he was attempting to turn into a driveway from Hulls Highway but missed it and hit a stonewall thirty-nine feet before the driveway entrance. When a wrecker came to extricate his vehicle, he became involved in another accident involving the wrecker. The officer reports that the plaintiff refused to take any field sobriety tests. The officer thereupon arrested the plaintiff on the drunk driving charge. At the police station, the officer reports, the plaintiff refused to submit to a breath test when requested to do so. The refusal was witnessed by Police Officer Walsh, who signed the A 44 form to that effect. Officer Walsh's name appears also on an intoximeter printout as the operator who checked the machine, apparently in anticipation of testing the plaintiff.
Certain basic principles of administrative law govern the court's decision in this case. One of these is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes §
In the present case, the evidence upon which the hearing officer based his findings and conclusions consisted of the police reports, which had been introduced without objection. General Statutes §
The plaintiff's argument that the hearing officer should not have admitted the reports in evidence may not be sustained. He waived any objections in this regard by failing to raise them at the hearing. Id. The court would also note that his objection is based on an incorrect reading of the requirements of §
The plaintiff's arguments concerning the issues of operation and operation on a public road are also not sustainable. The plaintiff's own statements as recorded, by the police officer in his reports, constitute sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's findings on those issues.
Finally, the plaintiff argues that the hearing officer improperly found that the plaintiff refused to be tested because there was no evidence that the alleged refusal occurred within two hours after he was operating his vehicle. The plaintiff's argument is based on his interpretation of the provisions of Public Act 93-371, amending subsection (f) of CT Page 1918 §
(3) did such person refuse to submit to such test or analysis or did such person submit to such test or analysis, commenced within two hours of the time of operation, and the results of such test or analysis indicated that the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person was ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight . . . In the hearing, the results of such test or analysis shall be sufficient to indicate the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person at the time of operation . . . .
The police report states that the police officer arrived at the scene at 12:29 A.M. and at that time saw the plaintiff getting out of his vehicle. Officer Walsh's intoximeter printout shows that the machine was checked at 1:59 A.M., one hour and thirty minutes later. On this evidence, the hearing officer could reasonably have found that the police requested and the plaintiff refused to be tested within two hours after operating the vehicle.
There is, however, a more fundamental reason for rejecting the plaintiff's argument concerning the finding that he refused the test in violation of §
For the reasons set forth above, the commissioner's decision must be affirmed. CT Page 1919
The appeal is dismissed.